Pro-slavery Democrats reduced slavery. By demanding the dehumanization of black people like me, selling them like property, or killing them because they had no Constitutional rights they actually did more to rescue slaves than abolitionists.
Sounds preposterous, right? Well, not if you're buying what pro-Hillary evangelicals are selling. Somehow, the most radically pro-abortion candidate in history is the solution to reducing the shocking number of abortions in our country, according to Eric Sapp's latest article: "A Democrat's Plea for Reason on Abortion After Hillary Wins."
I'm a factivist. I refuse to be swayed by mere emotion. As a Christian, I am driven by a faith inextricably tied to reason. Facts matter. Context matters.
You can't call for a more "honest conversation about abortion" by delivering more denial and deception. And it's fascinating to me that these "honest conversations" never once mention the violence of abortion, the reality that there are 1.1 million deaths of innocent human beings, or the physical, spiritual and emotional damage that mothers and fathers suffer from ending the life of their child.
Guttmacher Institute (funded millions by Planned Parenthood up until a few years ago) claims that 49% of abortion "patients" are poor (below the federal poverty line), and another 26% are "low-income" (100%-199% above the poverty line). Guttmacher is known, by the way, for fudging numbers. This would mean 75% are "low-income". Not sure how that translates to this demographic lacking "access" to abortion when they allegedly comprise the majority. But there's no way to know who (socio-economically) is really having abortions since there is no federal or state mandate to report income levels (see example of Abortion Reporting Form). Even Guttmacher admits this data is not collected. Planned Parenthood spokespeople have reiterated this fact numerous times in various news articles, boasting that they don't collect vital demographic characteristics of those having abortions: "We are also strongly opposed to attempts to turn doctors into investigators and women into suspects by forcing physicians to interrogate women about their motives for obtaining an abortion."
And we know abortionists aren't the most ethical in the field of medicine. So, how exactly does this pro-abortion activist group conclude such numbers? The age demographic that seeks the most abortions, according to the CDC, are 20-24 year olds (32.8% of all U.S. abortions). There aren't a whole lot of college students whose earnings are above the federal poverty line, but you can't exactly categorize them as poor. So, there's that.
That same report also claimed only 44% of the facilities they contacted responded to the survey. Oh, and they eliminated any hospitals that commit abortion. They only make up a measly 4% of nationwide abortions, according to Guttmacher. What's a little statistical manipulation for an organization rife with contradictions?
Eric Sapp suggests that abortion is a "tragic symptom of a much bigger problem". It's like saying slavery was a symptom of the larger problem of a tough job market. The industry of abortion, like that of slavery, is not a symptom to be diagnosed but a cancer to be removed.
One can demand to defund a corrupt, dehumanizing, Medicaid and taxpayer program defrauding ($130 million and counting) business that profits from killing those made in the image of God while simultaneously addressing the reasons women choose abortion or are forced by family, husbands or boyfriends to have them. Since less than 0.8% of the U.S. population is actually served by Planned Parenthood's 650 abortion or abortion referral centers, it wouldn't be a monumental task to defund and replace them.
Politics loves to exploit the impoverished. Poor women (and men) can access contraception at over 13,000 taxpayer-funded, federally qualified health centers and community health centers across the country (see GetYourCare.org). These real medical facilities offer far more healthcare than Planned Parenthood and deliver comprehensive care on a sliding scale basis (which means no cost for those who qualify).
Why don't articles proposing the fantasy that Hillary Clinton or pro-abortion Democrats will reduce abortions ever mention the 2,500 pregnancy care centers that Planned Parenthood and the abortion lobby try so desperately to shut down?
These centers care for mothers and their children, free of charge, throughout the pregnancy and for years after the child is born. They offer parenting classes, maternity and baby supplies, connections to local resources, help with applying for State assistance, and (increasingly) provide mentoring programs for fathers. Sapp and other liberal evangelicals never address the 407 faith-based maternity homes across the nation that provide rescue, shelter, and care to mothers and their children. My organization, The Radiance Foundation, has had the incredible privilege of working with many of these life-affirming resources over the years and have witnessed the transformation of lives made possible by God-centered redemption, not contraception.
I was once considered an "unwanted" or "unintended" pregnancy. My biological mother experienced the horror of rape, yet courageously chose Life.
Sapp says "rhetoric and labels will at best accomplish only minimal movement around the margins" yet readily and falsely labels poor women as being "10 times more likely to have an abortion if they experience an unwanted pregnancy" without any substantiation.
The Brookings Institution published a 2015 report that reveals a completely different narrative: "higher-income single women are much more likely to have an abortion than low-income women." Their report, unlike Guttmacher's, shows actual data, charts and tables which reveal that 32% of women whose income was 400% above the poverty line had an abortion the previous year while only 9% of women who were below the poverty line chose abortion.
Can we just stop exploiting the poor, already?
Perhaps Common Core Math has been employed in Sapp's article, because the numbers don't add up. He claims "4 million women got pregnant in the second year of Obama's tenure." According to the CDC, there were 6.155 million pregnancies in the United States in 2010. Of those, 1,102,700 human lives were killed via abortion. There were 1,608,600 abortions in 1990, during George H. W. Bush's second year in office; half of that would be 804,300. That's only about 300,000 off, but who's counting? There were also 6.786 million U.S. pregnancies in 1990 — 631,000 more pregnancies than in 2010.
Clarity and context are vital.
Welfare, needed for temporary assistance to address complex perpetual poverty, is not the answer to abortion. In fact, "reproductive freedom" exacerbates poverty by replacing fathers with horrible substitutes — government and abortion. Contrary to Sapp's assertions, Republicans and Democrats have both enabled the exponential increases in expenditures for entitlement programs which have been abused to the tune of billions of dollars annually. SNAP, or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (aka food stamps), has quadrupled in spending, skyrocketing from $18 billion in 2000 to $78 billion in 2016. In 1969, when the program began, the budget was $250.50 million; that's an increase of 31,138%, while participation increased at a much lower percentage of 1,590% (from 2,878,000 enrollees in 1969 to 45,767,00 in 2015). President Obama signed the 2014 Farm Bill cutting food stamp spending by $8.7 billion, so let's not pretend this is a Republican versus The Poor issue. Welfare is big business. Truly caring for the poor is really the Church's business. Government never does it well; it hasn't since the so-called War on Poverty was launched.
I would propose, too, that what is required by liberals when they encourage seeking "common ground" is that pro-life evangelicals cede ground. Many compromises later, we quickly find that ground is more like quick sand. You can't offer people freedom from a sinking position.
And it is freedom we're talking about here. Slavery abolitionists were defeated many times. The Supreme Court ruled the Civil Rights Act of 1875 (which was basically the same text for the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968) was unconstitutional in 1883. The Republican-only passed legislation (zero Democrats voted for it) was one of many attempts at establishing the humanity and Constitutional rights of people of my complexion. Sapp may consider defeat "fighting an old battle," but the righteous persevere.
Supremely wrong justices gave us the right to kill our offspring in 1973. And they've refused to reverse their death decree since Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton over and over again. But the fight to end the social injustice of abortion continues on multiple fronts — political, legal, educational, emotional, material, and spiritual. Rhetoric matters. Voting pro-life matters. Human life matters in and out of the womb.
Sapp has called for honesty numerous times in his latest piece. I have no problem providing it. Division is not inherently wrong. Truth is divisive — separating right from wrong. As Christians, it's imperative that we're proactive in seeking the truth and courageous enough to love others by acting on it.